Inherently better?

This is one part of The Social Justice Statement that troubles me:

WE AFFIRM that some cultures operate on assumptions that are inherently better than those of other cultures because of the biblical truths that inform those worldviews that have produced these distinct assumptions. Those elements of a given culture that reflect divine revelation should be celebrated and promoted.

The "inherently better than those of other cultures" seems to fly in the face Paul's declaration in Phil. 3 that he counted all the rights and privileges of being raised as a Hebrew, as dung compared to the surpassing greatness of Christ. He also wrote in Romans that there is no advantage to the Jew or to the Greek because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. If this is veiled reference to America, the debate is still out among Christian historians as to whether America is a Christian nation versus Christians being involved in its founding. Also we have to face the moral disconnect between what was advocated for all people in theory and who was actually granted the status of personhood. Is this a veiled reference to Western European culture? Is the gospel beholden to this group or that? In the end, we will throw our crowns at the feet of Christ alone, not Christ plus any human culture. God will not give his glory to another.

I would also ask how is "inherently better" determined? By history? But since when is history authoritative? I've posted this excerpt from American Exceptionalism and Civil Religion before, but it bears repeating. Also in case you haven't picked up on it, I strongly disagree with any form of American exceptionalism that equates this nation with the kingdom of God and imports attributes that are only for the church to a temporal country.

"When it comes to drawing wisdom from the past, we must be careful to discern between making normative moral judgments based on history and reflecting morally on history. McKenzie* emphasized the importance of this distinction, especially for a Christian. Moral judgments based on history are problematic, he said, because they require obedience to history where no divine mandate to do so exists. History is not authoritative, so drawing normative moral lessons from a past golden age of national history is not only unwise; it undermines the authority of Scripture by neglecting it and replacing it with another authority. It also places the person making the moral judgment in an artificially privileged position, so that with the Pharisee he demands others be subject to an extrabiblical source of authority arising from his own selfish motivations. Moral reflection, however, is directed selfward. McKenzie wrote that moral judgment "renders a verdict but requires nothing of the knowing heart. Moral reflection is deeply introspective and never leaves the heart untouched.""

American Exceptionalism and Civil Religion: Reassessing the History of an Idea, John D. Wilsey, IVP Academic, 2015, pg. 201. (italics mine)

* Wilsey is referring to The First Thanksgiving: What the Real Story Tells Us About Loving God and Learning From History, Robert Tracy McKenzie, IVP Academic, 2013.